Think 24/7 heavy truck traffic, seemingly random road closures to move turbines/blades that were never communicated to the locals
Oh, you poor baby, you had to live near a construction zone! Nobody else on earth has ever had to deal with that hardship, clearly!
huge amounts of deforestation (nine thousand acres worth)
First off, this is a lie. The whole wind farm is 9000 acres, but the turbines and surface roads only take up a tiny fraction of that land. If you zoom out your linked map a couple clicks, you can't even make out a difference from the surrounding landscape.
But hey, let's just ignore reality and pretend that they marched in and bulldozed flat 9000 acres, ripped up all the ground and dumped it into the streams for 141 megawatts that will be maintained for, oh let's say 50 years with a 35% capacity factor. So about 2 GWh of electricty per acre of bulldozed land, which is less than that for mined coal. Except that coal fully bulldozes (nay, outright excavates to great depth) its land in reality, not fiction, and what they excavate either goes into overburden heaps, is purposefully dumped into streams, or is coal that is burned, creating massive amounts of fly ash and clinker to be retained (at great environmental cost) and massive amounts of emitted pollution into the air (at even greater environmental cost).
In reality, that wind farm and its access roads is taking up, what, perhaps 4% of that area? So something like 50 GWh of electricity per acre.
But oh hey, it's not in your backyard, so you couldn't care less! And hey, it has a few slowly blinking red lights at night, clearly that's so much more of an eyesore than a damn coal mine!
Let's contrast that to nuclear power, the cutting edge of 1950s technology: Nine Mile Point [wikipedia.org] occupies 10% of that footprint (900 acres), hosts a second power station [wikipedia.org] on the property and between the two can generate 2,599 megawatts 24/7/365 regardless of the weather.
First off, false. Nuclear power plants have higher capacity factors but they do not have 100% capacity factor.
Secondly, you forgot to account for mining. Uranium mining has a significantly smaller footprint than coal mining per unit generation, but it's still a significant area due to the fact that they're mining for a fuel found in ppm quantities - and of the uranium they mine, U235 is only 0,7%, even of that they don't get all of it, and of that that goes into the fuel rods, only part of it gets consumed. Wind still wins on a real-world footprint comparison.
Third, uranium mines, being mines targetted at heavy metal extraction, generally have a far more profound impact on their local environments than coal mines on an acre-per-acre basis (coal mines only win on destruction due to their sheer size).
Fourth, you didn't account for reprocessing / long term storage.
Fifth, you didn't account for the consequences on rivers for dumping nearly two gigawatts of waste heat into them.
Sixth, most studies pin nuclear at significantly more expensive than wind per kWh. And wind prices are falling while nuclear has been rising.
Lastly, most people's opposition to nuclear has nothing to do with any of the above, so you're not even started getting into the reason why many people don't like it.